Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 16 Apr 2014, 17:03

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one"

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Read the Question in the post below and mark the Correct Answer below

  • 0% [0]
  • 22% [9]
  • 12% [5]
  • 37% [15]
  • 27% [11]
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 5

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 08:45
1
This post received
KUDOS
The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. (Background information While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true.Conclusion Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.Support. Quantity of ozone depleting Chemicals higher in one volcanic reaction than all other man-made ozone depleters combined Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can it be held responsible for destroying ozone.Further Support for the claim that man-made chemicals being ozone depleters isn't true.

A required assumption, is an assumption that must be true. It doesn't draw the conclusion, it merely must be factually correct. If not true, it will put doubt into the argument.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the author depends?

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone.Time. Doesn't matter.
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons.Doesn't need to be true. The main comparison is total ozone depleting chemicals. Hypothetically, human depleting could be more per molecule, but the argument indicates that a volcanic eruption spews far more quantity-wise.
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companiesThis is specifically indicated in the argument
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.If it did prevent, then there'd be no way for the volcanic eruptions to deplete the ozone, so you couldn't say that the human chemicals aren't contributing to depletion.
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released.Even if it is more important, we don't know what about the rate? What will the rate do!? We don't know. Will a faster rate lead to more destruction? Will a slower rate lead to more destruction? If the answer said a slower rate of chemicals released doesn't lead to more destruction, then that'd be a correction assumption in my opinion
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 5

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 12:34
1
This post received
KUDOS
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Consider this:

Premise: Socrates is a human
Conclusion: Socrates is intelligent

What is the assumption here for you to reach the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent? The assumption should be Humans are intelligent. So the assumption is based on the premise and the conclusion. It links the two. Any extraneous information should not be considered as assumption because we figure out the assumption based on the argument. For example you cannot say that "Humans who are not beautiful are intelligent and Socrates is not beautiful" is an assumption, though the conclusion would logically follow. This is because the argument doesn't warrant that information.

That is the reason choice D does not fit as an assumption for this question.


Dear Sravna,

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding this question. Your example is based on a sufficient assumption, whereas the question is in relation to a necessary assumption.

I certainly agree with your logic regarding the socrates example. However, that is sufficient as opposed to necessary. Whereas a necessary assumption if we drew in the sufficient assumption that you indicated

Socrates is human.
Socrates is intelligent.
Sufficient asssumption which would make argument stick: "All humans are intelligent" or "All people (people inferred to be human) named Socrates are intelligent"

However, a necessary assumption would be "All Intelligent humans are not named Bob"
This is necessary because if all intelligent humans were named Bob, then the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent couldn't follow.

Let me know your thoughts?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 17:02
variablechange wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Consider this:

Premise: Socrates is a human
Conclusion: Socrates is intelligent

What is the assumption here for you to reach the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent? The assumption should be Humans are intelligent. So the assumption is based on the premise and the conclusion. It links the two. Any extraneous information should not be considered as assumption because we figure out the assumption based on the argument. For example you cannot say that "Humans who are not beautiful are intelligent and Socrates is not beautiful" is an assumption, though the conclusion would logically follow. This is because the argument doesn't warrant that information.

That is the reason choice D does not fit as an assumption for this question.


Dear Sravna,

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding this question. Your example is based on a sufficient assumption, whereas the question is in relation to a necessary assumption.

I certainly agree with your logic regarding the socrates example. However, that is sufficient as opposed to necessary. Whereas a necessary assumption if we drew in the sufficient assumption that you indicated

Socrates is human.
Socrates is intelligent.
Sufficient asssumption which would make argument stick: "All humans are intelligent" or "All people (people inferred to be human) named Socrates are intelligent"

However, a necessary assumption would be "All Intelligent humans are not named Bob"
This is necessary because if all intelligent humans were named Bob, then the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent couldn't follow.

Let me know your thoughts?


Dear Variablechange,

My point is we are given the conclusion that socrates is intelligent. From that we can only assume that all humans are intelligent. Similarly, in the question, given the argument, we need to find out the assumption. Whether it be the assumption, strengthen or weaken facts, they should be related to the argument. The assumption question is typically, "which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?" In our question how do we know we have to think of the molecular structure of the chemicals being responsible for not reaching the stratosphere, given the argument? So anything not related to the argument is out of scope.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2526 [0], given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 18:23
Expert's post
variablechange wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Consider this:

Premise: Socrates is a human
Conclusion: Socrates is intelligent

What is the assumption here for you to reach the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent? The assumption should be Humans are intelligent. So the assumption is based on the premise and the conclusion. It links the two. Any extraneous information should not be considered as assumption because we figure out the assumption based on the argument. For example you cannot say that "Humans who are not beautiful are intelligent and Socrates is not beautiful" is an assumption, though the conclusion would logically follow. This is because the argument doesn't warrant that information.

That is the reason choice D does not fit as an assumption for this question.


Dear Sravna,

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding this question. Your example is based on a sufficient assumption, whereas the question is in relation to a necessary assumption.

I certainly agree with your logic regarding the socrates example. However, that is sufficient as opposed to necessary. Whereas a necessary assumption if we drew in the sufficient assumption that you indicated

Socrates is human.
Socrates is intelligent.
Sufficient asssumption which would make argument stick: "All humans are intelligent" or "All people (people inferred to be human) named Socrates are intelligent"

However, a necessary assumption would be "All Intelligent humans are not named Bob"
This is necessary because if all intelligent humans were named Bob, then the conclusion that Socrates is intelligent couldn't follow.

Let me know your thoughts?


Hi Variablechange,

I would like to give you 10 Kudos for this post. Let me know how can I do this :)

I must say you have used an extremely relevant yet simple analogy to explain a case, which is difficult to understand in the first place.

This is my first post on the forum after the question and I thought I need to start it by complementing you.BTW, refer to my below post where I mention specific OG examples which have these necessary assumptions as correct answer choices.

Great job :)

-Chiranjeev
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 18:27
Dear Variablechange,

Coming to your point of necessary assumption, the assumption in choice D is not really required. We know from the argument that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. So to make the argument valid all we need to do is to say that there is no factor more important than the quantity of chemicals released in determining ozone depletion. So even without saying D we can make the argument valid.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2526 [0], given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 18:35
Expert's post
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
anshunadir wrote:
The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can it be held responsible for destroying ozone.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the author depends?

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. how many years is not the question, but the question is that can mankind be responsible for ozone depletion ?
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. may be less but may be even more
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies not an assumption, already mentioned in the argument
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.
negate this - if the molecules from Volcanic eruptions can't reach the ozone layer, they wont deplete it
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. we don't really know whose rate is higher - volcanic eruption or industries


Dear Anshunadir,

The logic of Choice D that chemicals released in a volcanic eruption may not reach the stratosphere and therefore not destroy ozone is fine but the problem is it is not related to the author's argument. You would want to select a choice that relates to the author's argument and Choice E does that best. This is because the author makes his point by saying that the quantity of chemicals released in a volcanic eruption is enormously more than that released in man-made reactions. So his central assumption is that quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is destroyed. Choice E represents that assumption by saying factors other than quantity released such as the rate of release of chemicals are not important.


Hi SravnaTestPrep,

Let me begin by Thanking you for your contributions to the thread.

Coming to your point, I am not sure how you say that choice D is not related to the author's argument. If choice D doesn't hold, the argument falls apart - what else do we need to make something relevant to the argument?

If the point of contention is that Choice D talks about whether chemicals in a volcanic eruption would be able to reach stratosphere, which has not been discussed in the main argument, then consider the following GMAT Prep question:

Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
C. The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.


Here the correct choice is E. However, as one can see, whether Gold was added to the soil samples or not, has not been discussed or even touched upon in the main argument.

For more examples, you can refer to the below threads (all GMAT Prep questions):
press-secretary-our-critics-claim-that-the-president-s-16458.html
cr-agr-societies-15611.html
the-earth-s-rivers-constantly-carry-dissolved-salts-into-its-65775.html

In all of these examples, the assumption brings in some other point of view - if you negate this, your conclusion will fall apart.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2526 [1] , given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 18:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi All,

It has been a great discussion so far. I really enjoyed reading it - points, counter-points - I think this is what we are here for - to learn from each other.

Thank you to all and Kudos to people who put in detailed explanations for their answer choices.

Very nice and precise explanations by Anshunadir, ConnectTheDots and VariableChange.

And if some people are still wondering about OA:

Official Answer is Choice D

We'll put up official explanations by tomorrow. In any case, explanations by Anshunadir, ConnectTheDots and VariableChange are already there. :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 18:57
egmat wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
anshunadir wrote:
The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can it be held responsible for destroying ozone.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the author depends?

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. how many years is not the question, but the question is that can mankind be responsible for ozone depletion ?
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. may be less but may be even more
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies not an assumption, already mentioned in the argument
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.
negate this - if the molecules from Volcanic eruptions can't reach the ozone layer, they wont deplete it
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. we don't really know whose rate is higher - volcanic eruption or industries


Dear Anshunadir,

The logic of Choice D that chemicals released in a volcanic eruption may not reach the stratosphere and therefore not destroy ozone is fine but the problem is it is not related to the author's argument. You would want to select a choice that relates to the author's argument and Choice E does that best. This is because the author makes his point by saying that the quantity of chemicals released in a volcanic eruption is enormously more than that released in man-made reactions. So his central assumption is that quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is destroyed. Choice E represents that assumption by saying factors other than quantity released such as the rate of release of chemicals are not important.


Hi SravnaTestPrep,

Let me begin by Thanking you for your contributions to the thread.

Coming to your point, I am not sure how you say that choice D is not related to the author's argument. If choice D doesn't hold, the argument falls apart - what else do we need to make something relevant to the argument?

If the point of contention is that Choice D talks about whether chemicals in a volcanic eruption would be able to reach stratosphere, which has not been discussed in the main argument, then consider the following GMAT Prep question:

Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
C. The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.


Here the correct choice is E. However, as one can see, whether Gold was added to the soil samples or not, has not been discussed or even touched upon in the main argument.

For more examples, you can refer to the below threads (all GMAT Prep questions):
press-secretary-our-critics-claim-that-the-president-s-16458.html
cr-agr-societies-15611.html
the-earth-s-rivers-constantly-carry-dissolved-salts-into-its-65775.html

In all of these examples, the assumption brings in some other point of view - if you negate this, your conclusion will fall apart.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Dear Chiranjeev,

I still stand by my opinion that it is erroneous to make assumptions which are not related to the argument notwithstanding that GMAC uses such questions. The assumption question asks for an assumption on which the argument depends. In the above example it is wrong to say that choice E is the right answer because the argument does not necessarily depend upon choice E. For example the assumption could well have been: "the report of high gold content was not a fabricated one." So a more general assumption is required for this argument.

We do find questions such as these in the GMAT. Therefore the best thing to do would be to fall in line with it.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2526 [1] , given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 19:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Dinesh2Apr wrote:
Conclusion :- Ozone Depleting chemicals from volcano eruptions have depleted the ozone layer more than man made ozone depleting chemicals because the quantity of chemicals from volcano is more than man made chemicals

Assumption :- even if the quantity is more, the chemicals from volcano should actually cause the depletion

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. - OFS, from the given premise the quantity of man made chemicals will always be lower than natural chemicals
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. - OFS the amount of ozone destroyed by a single amount is not the scope of passage
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies - already stated in the passage, and our scope is total quantity not only 1 eruption
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. - Correct, if for some reason the chemical from volcano does not reach the ozone layer then chemical from volcano cannot be the cause of ozone depletion.
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. - this option states that rate is not as important as quantity, if we negate this option then it becomes rate is as important as quantity does this break the conclusion ? no, because we do not know whose rate is higher volcano or man made, if man made chemical`s rate is higher then the conclusion breaks but if volcano`s rate is higher then the conclusion is reinforced because in this situation both the rate and quantity of volcano is higher than man made.

IMO :- D


Hi Dinesh,

Your answer is correct. Choice D is the answer. However, I think your explanations for rejecting other options are not always correct.

Dinesh2Apr wrote:
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. - OFS the amount of ozone destroyed by a single amount is not the scope of passage


If amount destroyed by single molecule is out of scope, how come molecular structure discussed in Choice D is within the scope?

Dinesh2Apr wrote:
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. - this option states that rate is not as important as quantity, if we negate this option then it becomes rate is as important as quantity does this break the conclusion ? no, because we do not know whose rate is higher volcano or man made, if man made chemical`s rate is higher then the conclusion breaks but if volcano`s rate is higher then the conclusion is reinforced because in this situation both the rate and quantity of volcano is higher than man made.


The option states that rate is "not more important" than quantity - not "not as important" as quantity. So, if we negate this, we get that either rate is more important than quantity. Then, you correctly say that we don't know whose rate is higher.

But an important point here is that even if rate of man-made chemical is higher than that of volcanic eruption, the conclusion won't break apart. Why? Simply because we don't know a direct relation between rate of eruption to the depletion. If you think that that is obvious, then revisit Option D.

Negation of Option D breaks down the link between quantity of chemicals produced to their impact on the ozone layer. While chemicals released in volcanic eruption might be higher, if Option D is not true, these chemicals impact the ozone layer.

Even though you chose the right choice, the idea is that you understand these nuances so that when you see other OG question, you are more sure while selecting and rejecting option statements.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 19:35
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted
Premise 2: Volcanic eruptions have released more chemicals
Conclusion: Volcanic eruptions have depleted more ozone.

To the above add the following premise

Premise 3: Rate of release of chemicals is more important in determining the amount of ozone depleted

Now given the above premise can we reach the conclusion stated above? I guess not. Because unless we know certainly what premise 3 would ensue we cannot the the conclusion stated. That is my point.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 4169
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 894

Kudos [?]: 3784 [0], given: 148

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 20:21
Expert's post
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted


There is the problem.

"Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." is not a premise. It is what the author is implying/assuming. It is not given as a fact.

Let's review the argument:

The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - A fact about what people generally think.

While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. - Conclusion of the argument

Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all mankind in history. - Fact about who produces more ozone-depleting chemicals

The argument does not tell us that "Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." It is something the author is implying. He is assuming that if more chemicals are released, more ozone is depleted. The point is that if the 'chemicals released' are unable to reach the ozone layer, they cannot deplete it. So the author is assuming that the chemicals released are able to reach the ozone layer.

Hence answer has to be (D).
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 2

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 20:44
egmat wrote:
Dinesh2Apr wrote:
Conclusion :- Ozone Depleting chemicals from volcano eruptions have depleted the ozone layer more than man made ozone depleting chemicals because the quantity of chemicals from volcano is more than man made chemicals

Assumption :- even if the quantity is more, the chemicals from volcano should actually cause the depletion

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. - OFS, from the given premise the quantity of man made chemicals will always be lower than natural chemicals
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. - OFS the amount of ozone destroyed by a single amount is not the scope of passage
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies - already stated in the passage, and our scope is total quantity not only 1 eruption
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. - Correct, if for some reason the chemical from volcano does not reach the ozone layer then chemical from volcano cannot be the cause of ozone depletion.
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. - this option states that rate is not as important as quantity, if we negate this option then it becomes rate is as important as quantity does this break the conclusion ? no, because we do not know whose rate is higher volcano or man made, if man made chemical`s rate is higher then the conclusion breaks but if volcano`s rate is higher then the conclusion is reinforced because in this situation both the rate and quantity of volcano is higher than man made.

IMO :- D


Hi Dinesh,

Your answer is correct. Choice D is the answer. However, I think your explanations for rejecting other options are not always correct.

Dinesh2Apr wrote:
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. - OFS the amount of ozone destroyed by a single amount is not the scope of passage


If amount destroyed by single molecule is out of scope, how come molecular structure discussed in Choice D is within the scope?

Dinesh2Apr wrote:
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. - this option states that rate is not as important as quantity, if we negate this option then it becomes rate is as important as quantity does this break the conclusion ? no, because we do not know whose rate is higher volcano or man made, if man made chemical`s rate is higher then the conclusion breaks but if volcano`s rate is higher then the conclusion is reinforced because in this situation both the rate and quantity of volcano is higher than man made.


The option states that rate is "not more important" than quantity - not "not as important" as quantity. So, if we negate this, we get that either rate is more important than quantity. Then, you correctly say that we don't know whose rate is higher.

But an important point here is that even if rate of man-made chemical is higher than that of volcanic eruption, the conclusion won't break apart. Why? Simply because we don't know a direct relation between rate of eruption to the depletion. If you think that that is obvious, then revisit Option D.

Negation of Option D breaks down the link between quantity of chemicals produced to their impact on the ozone layer. While chemicals released in volcanic eruption might be higher, if Option D is not true, these chemicals impact the ozone layer.

Even though you chose the right choice, the idea is that you understand these nuances so that when you see other OG question, you are more sure while selecting and rejecting option statements.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Hi Chiranjeev,

I do see the shortcomings in the reasoning for eliminating incorrect answers, thanks for the detailed analysis.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 20:51
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted


There is the problem.

"Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." is not a premise. It is what the author is implying/assuming. It is not given as a fact.

.


Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 4169
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 894

Kudos [?]: 3784 [0], given: 148

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 21:06
Expert's post
SravnaTestPrep wrote:

Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?


As you said, it is the author's view. Views/opinions are not premises. Premises are only the facts given.

The given premises are:

- The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - The fact is that this is a popular view among people.
- Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. - This is a fact that Mount Pinatubo spews more ozone depleting chemicals that man.
- Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them - Again, a fact about chemical output.

No other fact/premise is given.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2013, 21:11
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:

Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?


As you said, it is the author's view. Views/opinions are not premises. Premises are only the facts given.

The given premises are:

- The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - The fact is that this is a popular view among people.
- Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. - This is a fact that Mount Pinatubo spews more ozone depleting chemicals that man.
- Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them - Again, a fact about chemical output.

No other fact/premise is given.


Premise need not be a fact alone. It can be a proposition or in other words a view. The important point that is the conclusion of the argument should be based on that. In our case the conclusion of the author is based on his view that quantity of chemicals released is what is important.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

VP
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1080
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 65

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 06 Feb 2013, 01:36
Finally, I am relaxed now.......
Its not that my answer is correct so i am relaxed....but i understood why an answer, which was a close call is wrong, that makes me happy.

Thanks a trillion to Cheeranjeev.....................
Pls continue the work of posting but do not delay in posting the answer, i cannot explain i was not able to sleep........
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 2
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 07 Feb 2013, 03:56
D should be the answer. It can be tested by negation test as already explained.

On the other hand, if we can relate the amount with molecules, then A should also be considered.
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2526 [0], given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2013, 22:50
Expert's post
Here's the official answer and explanation:

Understanding the passage

Conclusion:
The attribution of depletion of Ozone layer to man-made chemicals is not true.

Premises:
1. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history
2. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them

In this case, premises 1 and 2 are set of dependent information pieces and comprise a single reason used by the author to arrive at the conclusion. In essence, the reason is:

Ozone depleting chemicals produced by Mount Pinatubo is much greater (probably billion of times) than ozone depleting chemicals (fluorocarbons) produced by mankind.
This reason is used to signal that man-made chemicals can only play an insignificant role in the depletion of Ozone layer.
Therefore, (Conclusion) Man-made chemicals can’t be held responsible for ozone layer depletion.

Prethinking

As we can see, the argument is talking only in terms of the amount of ODC ( Ozone Depleting Chemicals), not in terms of their impact on the ozone layer. This is a missing link that is needed to establish the correctness of the argument.
So, a statement like “ODCs generated by volcanic eruptions have the same effect on the Ozone as ODCs generated by mankind”, would complete the argument.
However, this is not a must-be-true statement. Why? Because we know that the quantity of volcanic ODCs is probably billions of times greater than man-made ODCs, therefore, even if volcanic ODCs have much less effect than man-made ODCs, our conclusion would still hold.

Therefore, our only requirement can be that volcanic ODCs have at least some effect on the Ozone layer.
However, why would ODCs be called so if they don’t have any effect on Ozone layer. So, they have to have some impact. This leads me to think that there are only two situations in which the argument won't hold:

1. Volcanic ODCs don’t reach Ozone layer due to some reason (hypothetical) –
a. Probably because due to their high temperature. they react with some chemical as soon as they reach atmosphere and this reaction snaps their ability to deplete Ozone layer
b. Their chemical or physical properties is different from man-made ODCs and these properties prevent them from reaching Ozone layer

2. Volcanic ODCs can’t deplete unless the depletion has been started by man-made ODCs. Suppose, Ozone layer exists in a very stable state – this state cannot be affected by volcanic ODCs. However, once man-made ODCs can start reactions with this stable state of Ozone and deplete it, this makes the Ozone layer reactive even to Volcanic ODCs.

In both the situations above, our conclusion won’t hold. Therefore, negation of either of the two statements could be a valid assumption and therefore, answer to our question.

Analysis of Answer Choices

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. – So what? We are concerned with the cause of depletion, not the time-frame. Incorrect.

B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. – As we analyzed in the pre-thinking, this is not required. Even if a molecule of volcanic chemical destroys much less ozone than a man-made chemical, the conclusion will still hold. Therefore, this is not a must be true statement. Thus, Incorrect.

C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies – This can be inferred from the passage. Therefore, this presents no new information and thus, cannot be an assumption. Incorrect.

D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. – This is in line with our prethinking. If these volcanic ODCs don’t reach ozone layer, then the reasoning of the argument breaks down. Therefore, this is a must-be-true statement for the argument to hold. Correct.

E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. – Given this statement is in a negative form “not more”. Let’s negate it and see if the conclusion breaks down. We can see that even if rate is more important than the quantity, it doesn’t impact the conclusion, since we don’t know whether slow rate depletes Ozone layer more or fast rate depletes more. Therefore, Incorrect.

Therefore, the answer choice is Option D.

Hope this helps :)

-Chiranjeev Singh
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 8

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 13 Feb 2013, 19:10
egmat wrote:
Here's the official answer and explanation:

Understanding the passage

Conclusion:
The attribution of depletion of Ozone layer to man-made chemicals is not true.

Premises:
1. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history
2. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them

In this case, premises 1 and 2 are set of dependent information pieces and comprise a single reason used by the author to arrive at the conclusion. In essence, the reason is:

Ozone depleting chemicals produced by Mount Pinatubo is much greater (probably billion of times) than ozone depleting chemicals (fluorocarbons) produced by mankind.
This reason is used to signal that man-made chemicals can only play an insignificant role in the depletion of Ozone layer.
Therefore, (Conclusion) Man-made chemicals can’t be held responsible for ozone layer depletion.

Prethinking

As we can see, the argument is talking only in terms of the amount of ODC ( Ozone Depleting Chemicals), not in terms of their impact on the ozone layer. This is a missing link that is needed to establish the correctness of the argument.
So, a statement like “ODCs generated by volcanic eruptions have the same effect on the Ozone as ODCs generated by mankind”, would complete the argument.
However, this is not a must-be-true statement. Why? Because we know that the quantity of volcanic ODCs is probably billions of times greater than man-made ODCs, therefore, even if volcanic ODCs have much less effect than man-made ODCs, our conclusion would still hold.

Therefore, our only requirement can be that volcanic ODCs have at least some effect on the Ozone layer.
However, why would ODCs be called so if they don’t have any effect on Ozone layer. So, they have to have some impact. This leads me to think that there are only two situations in which the argument won't hold:

1. Volcanic ODCs don’t reach Ozone layer due to some reason (hypothetical) –
a. Probably because due to their high temperature. they react with some chemical as soon as they reach atmosphere and this reaction snaps their ability to deplete Ozone layer
b. Their chemical or physical properties is different from man-made ODCs and these properties prevent them from reaching Ozone layer

2. Volcanic ODCs can’t deplete unless the depletion has been started by man-made ODCs. Suppose, Ozone layer exists in a very stable state – this state cannot be affected by volcanic ODCs. However, once man-made ODCs can start reactions with this stable state of Ozone and deplete it, this makes the Ozone layer reactive even to Volcanic ODCs.

In both the situations above, our conclusion won’t hold. Therefore, negation of either of the two statements could be a valid assumption and therefore, answer to our question.

Analysis of Answer Choices

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. – So what? We are concerned with the cause of depletion, not the time-frame. Incorrect.

B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. – As we analyzed in the pre-thinking, this is not required. Even if a molecule of volcanic chemical destroys much less ozone than a man-made chemical, the conclusion will still hold. Therefore, this is not a must be true statement. Thus, Incorrect.

C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies – This can be inferred from the passage. Therefore, this presents no new information and thus, cannot be an assumption. Incorrect.

D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. – This is in line with our prethinking. If these volcanic ODCs don’t reach ozone layer, then the reasoning of the argument breaks down. Therefore, this is a must-be-true statement for the argument to hold. Correct.

E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. – Given this statement is in a negative form “not more”. Let’s negate it and see if the conclusion breaks down. We can see that even if rate is more important than the quantity, it doesn’t impact the conclusion, since we don’t know whether slow rate depletes Ozone layer more or fast rate depletes more. Therefore, Incorrect.

Therefore, the answer choice is Option D.

Hope this helps :)

-Chiranjeev Singh


In my opinion an assumption should relate to the argument. Only then it makes sense. If we can assume choice D then we can equally assume the following: "Scientists who have the capability of preventing ozone depleting chemicals from reaching the stratosphere would not do so". But does it make sense considering the argument?

The way we need to go about it is that we first take the premise of the argument which is: the quantity of the ozone depleting chemicals determines how much of ozone is depleted. An assumption should be something which fills the gap which the above premise leaves open so that the conclusion is valid. What does the premise miss? It misses the possibility that some other factor than quantity might also determine ozone depletion and it might be more important. So we look for a choice that says exactly that. Choice E does that. I would have been perfect if Choice E had been more general but it does a better job than choice D.

So in spite of the official answer being announced as D, I would still stick with choice E.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 76
Location: United States
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 22

Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one" [#permalink] New post 09 May 2013, 14:58
carcass wrote:
Please Chiranjeev provide OA .

Thanks



Hey Guyys,

The official answer is D . Here is a link to it on beat the GMAT . - http://www.beatthegmat.com/an-assumptio ... 71004.html
People should be made to post the answer along with the question , for the benefit of others using the forum. Question without an answer is as good as no question.
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one"   [#permalink] 09 May 2013, 14:58
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Popular new posts If the depletion of the ozone in the upper portion of the qhoc0010 12 16 Jan 2005, 05:02
New posts The importance of the ozone layer to terrestrial animals is vshaunak@gmail.com 4 02 Jul 2007, 03:20
Popular new posts The stratospheric ozone layer is not a completely uniform nitya34 15 25 Mar 2009, 09:36
Popular new posts 1 Experts publish their posts in the topic The importance of the ozone layer to terrestrial animals is jade3 10 08 Nov 2009, 20:46
New posts Ozone layer - Debatable OA metallicafan 6 29 Dec 2010, 23:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion-"Tough one"

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.